From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965287AbWKDKfe (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Nov 2006 05:35:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965276AbWKDKfe (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Nov 2006 05:35:34 -0500 Received: from ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com ([166.70.28.69]:13023 "EHLO ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965287AbWKDKfd (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Nov 2006 05:35:33 -0500 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Andrew Morton Cc: Christoph Lameter , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: CTL_UNNUMBERED and killing sys_sysctl References: <20061103134633.a815c7b3.akpm@osdl.org> Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 03:35:00 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20061103134633.a815c7b3.akpm@osdl.org> (Andrew Morton's message of "Fri, 3 Nov 2006 13:46:33 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrew Morton writes: > That has several typos and grammatical mistakes. > >> + VM_MIN_INTERLEAVE=39, /* Limit for interleave */ > > I think we recently decided to set all new sysctl number to CTL_UNNUMBERED. > Eric, can you remind us of the thinkin there please? Sure. Sorry for the delay you buried the question well. The basic thinking goes as follows. To properly allocate the numbers for the binary sysctl interface requires a lot of discipline that we have proven that we don't always have. Essentially no one uses the binary sysctl interface anyway. Therefore CTL_UNNUMBERED was introduced so we don't need to allocate a binary sysctl number to add a sysctl to the /proc/sys, interface. This avoids approach patch decay before the patch is merged upstream. So in general if you really need a new binary sysctl number the approach should be first get your patch merged into Linus's tree and then get an additional 3 line patch merged into Linus's tree to get your number. I probably need to wake the conversation up again to see if we can make the final determinate if we want to drop the binary sysctl interface after having a long grace period, or simply commit to maintain it. Linus's tree still has the binary interface slated for removal in January 2007, that was only appropriate when we believed there were no users in user space that cared. The big maintenance problem has been the bit rot of patches where people allocate the next number and their patches take a long time to get into Linus's tree. So by the time they are merged the patches conflict over which number they get, and by that time the code has shipped with a binary interface in a distro kernel. CTL_UNNUMBERED by freeing us from allocating the binary interface and just using the file based one gives us a mechanism to solve that maintenance problem. I have not heard of a conflict of file names under /proc/sys. Andrew can we get the CTL_UNNUMBERED patches pushed up to Linus? Eric